Inflatable penile prostheses (or, as may be termed hereinafter, “IPPs”) are well known and have been in wide use. These devices are surgically implanted in male patients who, typically, are unable to achieve or sustain a penile erection due to a physical disability.
IPPs typically comprise several components such as a fluid reservoir, a pump, a valve, at least one inflatable cylinder including a rear tip with a strain relief portion and a tubing junction, and various lengths of tubing which fluidly connect the fluid reservoir, the pump, the valve, and the strain relief portion of the inflatable cylinder or cylinders (hereinafter, whether singular or plural, “cylinder”). Typically the fluid reservoir is surgically implanted in the patient's abdomen, with the pump and the inflatable cylinder being surgically implanted in, respectively, the patient's scrotum and penile corpora cavernosa; and the valve is commonly co-located with the scrotal pump. After implantation and in use, when an erection is desired by the patient, the scrotal pump is typically manipulated by the patient in an instructed way to cause fluid transfer by way of the tubing from the reservoir, via the valve, through the tubing junction, strain relief portion and rear tip, and to the cylinder such that inflation of the cylinder is effected thereby resulting in an erection as desired. When the patient desires to terminate the erection and return his penis to a flaccid state, the scrotal pump is typically again manipulated by the patient in an instructed way to cause fluid transfer from the cylinder through the rear tip and strain relief portion, through the tubing junction, via the valve, and back to the reservoir such that deflation of the cylinder is effected thereby resulting in penile flaccidity as desired. Regardless of a particular construction or mode of operation, various examples of IPPs per se and their components are described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,235,227 to Yamanaka, titled “Artificial Corpus Cavernosum Device”; U.S. Pat. No. 4,566,446 to Fogarty, titled “Penile Prosthesis Device”; U.S. Pat. No. 4,782,826 to Fogarty, titled “Penile Prosthesis”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,417 to Cowen, titled “Prosthesis with Improved Pump”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,063,914 to Cowen, titled “Penile Prosthesis”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,067,485 to Cowen, titled “Corpus Cavernosum Implant Device”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,167,611 to Cow[e]n, titled “Penile Implant with Lengthening Cylinder”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,250,020 to Bley, titled “Unitary Inflatable Penile Prosthesis”; U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,851,176 and 6,171,233 to Willard, each titled “Pressure-Responsive Lockout Valve and Method of Use”; U.S. Pat. No. 5,895,424 to Steele, Sr., et al., titled “Prosthesis Having an Alignment Indicator and Method of Using Same”; and U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,808,490 and 7,169,103 to Ling, et al., each titled “Penile Prosthesis with Improved Tubing Junction”.
Rear tips of known IPPs have typically embodied geometries or “profiles” that are relatively high, in that the strain relief portions and tubing junctions may together form a significant elevation or acute angle relative to a longitudinal axis through the cylinder and the rear tip. Additionally, rear tips with their strain relief portions and tubing junctions typically embody relatively rigid and inflexible structures. Thus, rear tips of known IPPs heretofore have, in some cases, presented several drawbacks to physicians who implant them in patients and also to the patients themselves. These deficiencies attributable to a relatively high and rigid rear tip profile have included, for example, a need for substantial anatomical dissection or preparation during implantation surgery, a need for a surgical technique which accommodates implantation of such a device, and post-operative discomfort to the patient due to presence of such a device in the patient's body.
Attempts have been made to solve these aforementioned deficiencies of rear tips through, for example, construction of the strain relief portion and tubing junction in which the tubing was bonded into a pre-molded tubing socket in the strain relief portion using medical grade silicone adhesive. However, such constructions may be relatively inefficient and costly to produce, and may still not satisfactorily mitigate the problems of a relatively high and rigid rear tip profile. Further attempts to mitigate these problems have been proposed through rear tip constructions as described in, for example, the aforementioned U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,808,490 and 7,169,103 to Ling, et al. These publications teach rear constructions utilizing “compound curves” and “keyholes” to provide a device that may be “easier to implant and reduce trauma [by providing] a smaller effective width [or profile] during implantation, after implantation, or both.” However, these constructions may also be relatively inefficient and costly to produce, and may not satisfactorily mitigate the aforementioned problems.
Thus, an unmet need has existed for a low profile rear tip for IPPs that may overcome deficiencies of known devices. For example, such a low profile rear tip may be easier to surgically implant when compared to known rigid, high profile rear tips for IPPs. Also, such a low profile rear tip may mitigate post-operative discomfort to the patient when compared to known rigid, high profile rear tips for IPPs. Further, such a low profile rear tip may be relatively more efficient and less costly to produce than known rigid, high profile rear tips for IPPs.
To accomplish these objectives, these rear tips could be constructed with a novel and heretofore unknown profile that is relatively low when compared to known devices, by integrally constructing the strain relief portion and tubing junction as a “one-piece” component, thereby promoting a relatively low profile as desired while also reducing production costs as compared to known devices.